Hello all.
I thought I might let the dust settle a bit before submitting a reply.
We probably all need some clarification at this stage.
What evolutionary events that may have occurred to the human genome in the past, is not
available to us. Assumptions, approximations, inference and ideology, though are never in
short supply.
The general point I was trying to make in the intial post, was simply that man did not seem to have
the necessary inherited traits to survive in the wild. Certainly not as a ground dwelling creature,
whether man was social or not, really does not address the real issue. There are certain required
attributes, compulsory attributes, that man must have in his genetic makeup to be able to survive,
on the ground in Africa.
These genetic attributes are displayed in all their abundance, by all ground dwelling creatures
in Africa, and this by observation! Speed, numbers, stamina, camoflage, heightened sight, hearing
and smell. Alertness and the ability to detect a threat a great distance is crucial to survival in Africa.
A thick hide and extreme acceleration are very common attributes. Man fails on almost all of the
above attributes. Granted man could spot a threat at some distance, but the problem is man is a
slow moving biped, how does he evade the six hungry female lions? Forget endurance, hungry
lions will outrun a man on any day of the week.
This is essentially ground zero for the theory of evolution.
Four legs seems to be one very common and special attribute, that is necessary for ground dwelling
creatures to survive. Man has only two legs and this presents a decisive problem to the question
of man's survival in this hostile world. As far as predators are concerned, four legs is good, two
legs is a guaranteed meal, an extinction event waiting to happen.
Since man has two legs, we are forced to assume that man always had tools and shelter (fenced).
If man's ancestor walked on the ground, this ancestor was also armed. Mankind without tools is
not an option, never was an option. In the distant past the number of predators in Africa was very
high. Mankind without tools in this very hostile environment, walking around on the ground is a
null event.
So ground zero is really the difficult question, if man had to have tools, he had tools on the
very first journey. If man (or ancestor) had tools the moment he stepped down from the trees,
he also must have had these tools while up in the trees. Man would not need tools high in the
tree canopy though. So how or when does man develop these essential tools?
Some care should be exercised here, by tools we are not talking about sticks. Lions are
powerful predators, and even a high powered rifle is necessary to stop one, but don't miss.
Better to see early man in numbers and heavily armed, anything less would be foolhardy.
On the subject of hunting and running around on a savannah in Africa, for two or more
hours in pursuit of a creature (endurance). In the modern era, yes you may get away with
that form of hunting. Go back three thousand years and no one is running around on any
savannah in Africa and surviving. Lion numbers were far too high to execute this form of
endurance hunting back then.
Not to mention walking for two to three hours with a slab of fresh meat, hanging over your
shoulder. This would certainly be a null event in ancient times.
